An authoritarian is a political leader who is on the way towards dictatorship. Dictators can gain power in several ways, but surprisingly, many of them do so with an election. They win the election and then they consolidate their power, hurt their future competitors, and turn into a one-party state. This was the playbook in Nazi Germany, and it worked in Venezuela.
Any objective review of our recent history is that the Democrats have used and are planning to use this strategy right now. It is self-evident, from both their recent past history and the statements of their political leaders. It is one reason why the Right is so committed to President Trump, because he is the only thing standing in the Left’s way.
What prompted my post today was an opinion piece published in the Sunday Boston Globe. The Globe pretty much only runs Leftist hit jobs against Republicans and President Trump, and so I’ve learned to just skip most of the content on those pages. But since “Trump is an authoritarian” is one of the Democratic talking points, I read through the article. In it, the two authors, both college professors, argue that Trump is the authoritarian and that people should prepare to protest after the election. Make a plan now to get on the street, they say, because Trump is certainly going to contest the results.
The article makes it clear that the authors favor non-violent protests, but we know the Far Left will “hijack” the protests and the media will call them “mostly peaceful.” So given the recent history of rioting, looting, arson, and actual murder committed by BLM and Antifa, I take the professors’ claim to supporting “peaceful” protesters with a grain of salt. And given that the Democratic nominee refuses to condemn the Far Left violence by name, and the mainstream media never asks him about it, we can assume articles like this which try to mobilize ordinary citizens into mobs would be helpful to the Left’s plan.
The authors argue that while both sides have had such authoritarian impulses, it is President Trump who is the real threat to our democracy. Yet the evidence says the opposite. And I will cite the Left’s plans to consolidate their power into a one-party state, as well as Trump’s passing on opportunities to take more power, something contrary to the Globe article’s hypothesis.
Who attempted to help his Party retain the White House? That would be President Obama, helping Hillary Clinton. And remember, we just learned that Obama was informed by John Brennan of this disinformation plot concerning Trump and Russia and he did nothing to keep the election fair and stayed silent. Obama also remained silent during the Mueller investigation and the impeachment process. So this is the action of an authoritarian.
Obama likely approved the FBI’s spying on the Trump campaign and then stayed silent during the coverup. This was meant to destabilize the Trump administration and help remove him from office. Remember during the early days of the Trump presidency, the Left invoked numerous ways of trying to get rid of Trump, including invoking the 25th amendment.
Here is the paragraph which describes how incumbent administrations tilt the scales in their favor, and let’s highlight the actions that the Obama administration and the Obama Justice Department took to help their ally, Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential election:
Democratic erosion (or “backsliding’’) is a process through which elected leaders use existing laws and institutions to undemocratic ends. They strategically manipulate elections by restricting the media, changing electoral rules to disadvantage the opposition, exploiting government resources for the incumbent’s benefit, and harassing rival candidates and their supporters.
Obama did this for his ally’s benefit, as a Clinton presidency was seen as a continuation of the Obama administration by the Left. And as to harassing rival candidates and their supporters, we only need look at the Obama Justice Department’s wiretaps of the Trump campaign and the disparaging of Trump supporters by Clinton and Obama.
And if you listen to what the Democrats plan if they win, it is clear that they want to marginalize the Republicans into oblivion. This includes packing the Supreme Court to eliminate the judicial branch’s independence, adding states to cement a Democratic Senate, and removing the Electoral College to ensure future Democratic victories. All of these acts are far beyond any of President Trump’s words, which are the only pieces of evidence the authors cite to charge him. In deeds, they seem to have none.
Now let’s pick out a sentence from the above paragraph:
They strategically manipulate elections by restricting the media, changing electoral rules to disadvantage the opposition…
Does this sound anything like the censorship the Left-leaning social media giants have engaged in during this campaign?
And how about Democrat-led cities and states changing election rules, to allow for widespread mailing of ballots, which Trump has called “universal mail-in voting.” Trump has complained loudly about these efforts on several fronts, including fraud, delayed election results, confusion, and ballots being disqualified. If not the fraud, at least the last three of these has been confirmed by the Boston Globe’s own reporting (see my piece on this here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/boston-globe-apparently-confirms-trump-mail-in-ballot-fears/)
The article cites Trump’s refusal to concede the election in advance of the vote itself. What a despot. But he has since walked back his statement on accepting the results of the election. He obviously thinks or hopes he will win. But calling into question the legitimacy of “universal mail-in voting” is not baseless, because it does present many challenges. These include fraud as well as overwhelmed election systems and long delays in getting final results. This is why having a full nine member on the Supreme Court is critical, so that we can have a judicial decision, if needed, that can’t end in a tie (thereby leading to a Constitutional crisis).
The Left likes to focus on Trump’s election fraud concerns and says that he is lying about them because there is no evidence. Let me give you an analogy.
For everyone on the Left that says the Coronavirus may surge this winter, you are all lying. There is no evidence of that either. When Joe Biden says we may face a dark winter, he is also lying. How can he know what is going to happen?
You see, speculating on a potential future is not lying, it is expressing a concern. Biden is worried about another Coronavirus wave, and Trump is worried about the upcoming election and (among other things) the millions of unrequested ballots. Neither scenario is true or false. Trump’s fears of voter fraud are a concern about a future event. They are not lies and they are not crazy. But they may not occur and hopefully will not. Yet this article writes, “Trump has aggressively undermined the legitimacy of the election with dubious claims about widespread voter fraud…” This is a false or misleading statement.
In other areas, Trump has acted against authoritarianism. In fact, Republicans tend to believe in decentralized government, and Democrats the opposite. So when Trump had the option to “nationalize” the response to the pandemic, he left it up to the states. This is a great example which disproves the hypothesis, which is maybe why the professors ignored it.
While Trump has championed funding for the military, he has spoken about this being a deterrent and has otherwise resisted foreign wars. He also has refused to send in military troops despite chaos in some cities like Portland, Oregon. An authoritarian would have sent in the troops and dealt with the consequences later. Trump threatened, cajoled, blustered, and offered help, but has not used the military in these cities.
The Left, on the other hand, wants to nationalize healthcare and nationalize the energy sector. This would put vastly more power into the hands of the government, run by the Democrats. That is a textbook power grab.
The references in this article to Trump’s alleged support of White Supremacy are disingenuous. Certainly the authors watched the President make his prior position clear in the ABC interview, which was just a repeat of what he said about Charlottesville, which has been inaccurately reported by the media and purposely mischaracterized by Joe Biden.
And the authors seek to tie Republican governors and legislators with trying to suppress the vote. I guess that is true, if you are trying to prevent people who have died or moved from voting. The Democrats want their supporters to vote early and often, and if a ballot is delivered to an address after someone has moved away, perhaps the new resident can use it.
I do not grade opinion articles for bias, but this article is extremely so despite the authors hiding behind the veneer of scientific academics just looking for the truth. No, they are trying to prepare the U.S. Left to take the streets so that the violent Left can once again hijack the “peaceful protests” and see if they can overturn a possible Trump win into vigilante justice and mob rule.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/963694687489008
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!